The Science Work
Site is for sale:
Category: History

To a question of a so-called revolution in the Polish historiography and his perception in Russia

UDK 930.2

L.M. Arzhakova


One of the episodes connected with understanding of causes of death of the Polish state both in the Russian, and in the Polish historical science of the 19th century is considered. Some settled ideas of perception in Russia of a so-called revolution in the Polish historiography are adjusted.

This article scrutinizes an episode unveiling the understanding of the causes of the fall of the Polish state in Russian and Polish historical science of the 19th century. The author revises some established concepts concerning the reception of the so called & #34; revolution in the Polish historiography" in Russia.

Philosophers, sociologists, historians constantly address scientific heritage of Nikolay Ivanovich Kareev to this day. As for the last, among them medievalists and novist prevail. Speak much less and write about Kareev as about a polonist though his contribution to development of the Russian polonistika is indisputable.

Stay in the Warsaw university as extraordinary professor of department of general history (1879 — 1885) induced N.I. Kareev to be engaged profoundly in the history of Poland, by his own recognition, "in many respects interesting" [1, page 156]. These classes were very fruitful. Soon after moving of the scientist in 1885 to St. Petersburg one by one there are its monographs which basis was formed by the materials collected in Warsaw. It — "An essay of history of the reformational movement and Catholic reaction in Poland" (M., 1886), "A historical essay of Polish Sejm" (M., 1888), etc. A specific place in this row is held by the monograph "& #34; Falling of Polshi" in historical literature" (SPb., 1888) where, attracting multilingual, old and new literature of a question, N.I. Kareev considered the huge material concerning how in the European historiography the death of the Polish state and its prime cause are treated.

The foreground in polonistichesky heritage of N.I. Kareev is occupied also by article "The Latest Polish Historiography and Revolution in It". For the first time printed in the December book of "the Bulletin of Europe" for 1886, and then included by the author in the collection "Polonica" [2], it drew attention of the Russian scientific community to the significant shifts happening in the Polish science.

Just in a year of moving of N.I. Kareev to Warsaw the Polish society was stirred up again by a fierce dispute on Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth causes of death. Issue of the "An essay of history of Poland" [3] belonging to a feather of professor of Jagiellonian University, one of eminent persons of the Krakow historical school Michal Bobzhinsky was of that the cause. Right after the emergence this book as Kareev wrote, "for sharply negative view of the past of Poland caused the mass of attacks to the author as person, & #34; soiling native гнездо" and nearly bribed by the Moscow rubles" [1, page 170].

N.I. Kareev as the fates decree appeared in the thick of the polemic developed around the book by M. Bobzhinsky, and to him, perhaps, more, than to any of the Russian scientists, it happened to experience all sharpness of these verbal fights (that he also reflected in the article of 1886). Kareev understood that the revolution in the Polish historiography took place not suddenly and therefore later, in the monograph 1888 will emphasize close interrelation between Michal Bobzhinsky's concept and a scientific position of one of founders of the Krakow school of Józef Shuysky. Shuysky, in particular, wrote in the capital "History of Poland" which was issued in the 1860th: "Behind an era... in which the apology was the main banner of the Polish historiography, another when among serious works comes. former apologetic systems fall... In new this direction there can be hobbies and unilaterality appearing from time to time; it, however, has future and unshakable right for existence because it seeks to give to society an objective truth. On -

board it put an end to unfortunate and so long-term delusion — protection and deification of anarchical Poland" [4, page 61 — 62].

However N.I. Kareev nevertheless was not the first of the Russian scientists who paid attention to significant shifts in approach of the Polish historical science to such sore point as the reasons of falling of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. For few years before publishing of the article "The latest Polish historiography.", which, actually, also laid the foundation for a series of the works of Kareev to a degree concerning the concept of falling of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth developed by Bobzhinsky for an exit "the Essay." other Russian historian — professor of the Moscow university Neil Aleksandrovich Popov responded.

In 1884. Popov printed article "About the Major Phenomena in the Polish Historical Literature for Last Year" [5, page 22 — 27]. In the article he gave an important place to Michal Bobzhinsky — "the most important representative of the Polish historiography" as the Moscow historian certified it. At the same time it was underlined that Bobzhinsky's researches "made a name of the author known in a scientific world; but it gained general fame not only in the Polish literature, but also others when he published the composition interesting in many respects & #34; History of Poland generally очерке"". The composition it "made strong nervousness between the Polish historians because put studying the Polish history on absolutely new bases" [5, page 25].

Having said that Bobzhinsky is "the closest to the scientific truth between modern Polish historians", Popov explained: he "the first with remarkable clarity and without any half-words defined the relation of a present Polish historiography to the previous directions" [5, page 26]. It was approvingly emphasized that "now the Polish historians less and less and less often give the science on service to philosophical theories, political doctrines and the clerical purposes and look for the bases for the conclusions only in critically explained historical material, in comparison of the Polish story with history of other people and in more or less impartial attitude towards weaknesses of the Polish life" [5, page 26].

It is necessary to tell that article about the Polish historiography was not the first experience of the recognized expert in the history of Serbia of Modern times N.A. Popov in the field of a polonistika. Interest in it — and, most likely, under the influence of S.M. Solovyov — wakened at it long ago [8; 9; 6, page 155]. From the middle of the 1860th there are its such articles to the Polish subject as "Poles in Prussia" (1864), "The Warsaw duchy" (1866), "The Poznan diets from 1827 to 1845" (1867). In 1875. "the bulletin of Europe" printed a cycle of its articles devoted to the recent past of the former capital of the Polish kingdom — "The free city of Krakow from 1815 to 1846".

I.G. Vorobyova, the most attentive image studied scientific heritage of Neil Aleksandrovich Popov, fairly noted that these articles "had descriptive, abstract character" that their author "seldom analyzed documents, retelling more often... books by the German, French, Austrian and Polish historians". In other words — they "were not independent" [6, page 157]. However, such strict assessment will not quite be coordinated with what literally the page was told by the researcher concerning Popov's article "Poznan Diets." earlier. Without any reservations it was underlined there that in this case N.A. Popov who carefully analyzed protocols of the Poznan diets "acted as the original researcher. having shown abilities to commenting and interpretation of the difficult text" [6, page 156].

In the articles on the Polish plots the historian acted as the convinced supporter of positive cooperation of Poles with Russians — for the sake of persuasiveness referring to authority of the famous Polish publicist of the age of Enlightenment Stanislav Stashits who appealed in one of the pamphlets to compatriots: "Unite to Russians and be educated" [10, page 590].

As for Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth causes of death (as is well-known, it is a problem which almost everyone anyway concerned, writing about Poland), and here N.A. Popov followed the tradition long ago approved in domestic historical literature. Being a guardian of the idea of Slavic unity, he, of course, regretted that "during an era of internal relaxation of Poland it was made unnatural from the all-Slavic point of view, but inevitable, according to the bringing to local history and under the terms of time, the union of Russia with the German possessors against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. There was a thought of the partition of Poland between allies".

Having once and for all acquired who is right — who is guilty of the sad fate of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, N.A. Popov on a step did not deviate the standard statement in the Russian science: ".uchastvuya in partitions of Poland, Russia only returned under the power lands, long since populated with east Slavs and once belonging to Ryurik dynasty. & lt;.> Political falling of the Polish people was made

not owing to only internal weakness of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, but, on the one hand, under the law of historical punishment for its former policy in the east of the Slavic world; with another — owing to the longtime aspiration of the German tribe to subordinate itself the Slavs, next to it, and to process them into mass, homogeneous with itself" [11, page 113]. Thus, having fairly worked, having used extensive literature (Polish, French, but mainly — German), Popov came to conclusions, long ago and strongly approved in the Russian society.

Anyway, it is necessary to pay tribute to his observation and, to a certain extent, insight. In fact, it really opened for the first Bobzhinsky for the Russian public. However nevertheless it is noticeable that the historian who happened to write on the Polish subjects more than once the expert in the history of Poland was not, and it was difficult to it to understand the historical concept of M. Bobzhinsky and furthermore in motives by which that was guided. Nevertheless, by sight I.G. Vorobyova, he managed to make it, and "Popov's work — according to her — was deep and in consonance with assessment of the liberal positivist Kareev" [6, page 72]. This observation is how indisputable?

It is confidently possible to say that N.A. Popov in the book by Bobzhinsky noted those judgments of the Polish affairs which were presented to him familiar for a long time — first of all according to the Russian compositions and any journal reviews. His own perception of death of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth quite answered that to the understanding of the causes of the Polish accident which strongly settled in the Russian historiographic tradition what we find at S.M. Solovyov and other Russian historians long before it [12, page 173 — 193]. It is enough to remember that Solovyov categorically said: "Poland died owing to the republican forms" [13, page 213].

If it is difficult to agree with I.G. Vorobyova concerning depth of analysis by N.A. Popov of "An essay of history of Poland" of Bobzhinsky, then the researcher, certainly, is right when she notes accord of the estimates of this book given by Popov and Kareev. Really, arguing on Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth causes of death, Kareev did not doubt at all that "their all rescue (Poles. — L.A.) the homeland could consist only in establishment of the strong government power" [14, page 554]. Exit "Essay." Bobzhinsky gave to the Russian historian a reason with satisfaction to note that let and after others, but Poles "began to understand the true reasons of fall of old Poland" [14, page 537].

I.G. Vorobyova fairly emphasized that circumstance that in interpretation of such problem, cardinal for a domestic polonistika, as falling of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and its reason, N.A. Popov and N.I. Kareev's opinions practically coincided. Stating this, at first sight surprising, even paradoxical coincidence, it is worth making two reservations, it appears. First, perhaps, will be to tell more precisely that not views of the conservative coincided with the liberal positivist's position, and on the contrary: in this case Kareev actually adjoined traditional Russian understanding of a question. Secondly, nevertheless it is impossible to lose sight of essential differences in approach of two scientists to the history of Poland and to the Polish historiography.

As for N.A. Popov who went in the footsteps of the teacher S.M. Solovyov also here, he was anxious first of all with to remove from the Russian Empire groundless as he considered, charges for sections of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Therefore it was so pleased by emergence in the Polish historical literature (in general as he knew, it is unfriendly and even hostile in relation to official St. Petersburg) so self-critical statement of the prominent Krakow scientist. Bobzhinsky's thesis was interpreted by it as one more confirmation of correctness of the Russian policy in the Polish question.

N.I. Kareev, on the contrary, was not a supporter of a rusifikatorstvo at all (and, actually, "stuffy" atmosphere of the Warsaw university in this sense compelled it at the first opportunity to leave its walls and to move to St. Petersburg). In courageous, obviously doomed to being indignantly met by very many Poles, Michal Bobzhinsky's declarations he saw, first of all, an act which, in his opinion, could promote overcoming old misunderstanding. As Kareev hoped, such step of the Polish historian would help reconciliation of the Russian and Polish society — to reconciliation which beginning, to its satisfaction, would proceed from the scientific Polish and Russian environment.

Anyway, N.A. Popov and N.I. Kareev, really, understood M. Bobzhinsky's concept generally equally. Though, perhaps, it will be more correct to tell that they not so much understood it how many interpreted in sense, habitual for them. In polemic to the pointed formula of the Krakow historian: "Not borders and not neighbors, only our inner tensions brought us to loss of the state existence. If. at the end of the 18th century we could not resist to danger, the only reason consisted in our internal beznaryad" — they with satisfaction apprehended the first phrase, without having attached significance of the second (however, approximately the same should be told also about revolted "with the Essay." Poles). It would seem, the question arises:


what was, actually, represented by that "danger" to which the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as not an impact of three neighboring monarchy weakened internal beznaryady was unable to resist? In other words, it is hardly possible to understand business so that Bobzhinsky removed any fault for sections of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from the powers which broke off it on a part — and first of all from Russia which, as we know, possessed the solving word here.

Paying tribute to Popov and Kareev's observation as for the significant shifts connected with a name of Bobzhinsky in a condition of the Polish historical thought, it should be noted that they after all lost sight of something.

The fact is that in 1874 on pages of "the Bulletin of Europe" there was article which author who disappeared under a cryptonym of "E.L." (unfortunately, it is not possible to reveal him with full confidence yet), drew the attention of readers to two Polish publications of documents which appeared not so long ago. According to him, "in our literature there passed almost unnoticed two very curious editions: & #34; Lordly конфедерация" and & #34; Internal correspondence of Stanislav of Avgusta" — these collections of original and very important historical materials shed bright light on internal state of Poland in the last minutes of its political existence" [15].

Ludwik Gumplovich (1838 — 1909), the graduate of the Krakow university, apparently, who like the ideas then of just formed Krakow historical school [17, page 150 — 153] was a publisher of the first of the collections [16] which drew attention of the author of article in "the Bulletin of Europe". It is not less our E.L., than the materials published by L. Gumplovich, his preface attracted to the publication. The Russian author are expressly that in the short essay preceding the publication of sources Gumplovich "does not close eyes before the desolate truth at all: he looks at it directly, though with deep grief", and its "view of the history of the fatherland" can be estimated as "very sober". "The sobriety of a look", from the point of view of E.L., proved just that L. Gumplovich saw Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth causes of death "not so much in injustice and violence from neighbors and enemies as it is done by almost all Polish historians how many in the conditions of the social and civil organization of the country". And further the author of journal article came to conclusion: "Such look makes in many respects news in the Polish historical science and demonstrates the wonderful turn arising recently in its direction" [15, page 6].

E.L. (much earlier, than Popov and Kareev, having paid attention to such shift in a question historiography) did not fail to state the — it is necessary to tell, impartial — opinion on an occasion of "most of the Polish writers". According to him, under their feather "all that before court of the conceiving and impartial person has to excite feeling of a deep regret, indignation and even disgust. turns into something ideal, into something highly perfect; the most gloomy and dark sides of the past have a shower bath pink and dazzle light".

All these Polish historians, novelists, poets and journalists whose be always on the lips "the similar relation to the past is called & #34; respect to традициям"", did not cause in E.L. the slightest sympathy. And therefore he with feeling of deep satisfaction quoted Gumplovich: "We fell — that wrote — despite of various efforts to rise, besides any attempts to revival — attempts which full history makes together the history of all reign of Stanislav Augustus; we fell owing to external influences, but even more — we will tell it with pain — owing to the reasons internal, disappearing in shortcomings of national character which even nowadays, despite all our misfortunes, are inherent in us and live in our feelings and in our mood". It is not surprising that our author could not constrain enthusiastic exclamation: "Such self-knowledge is very significant, and similar self-accusation very harakteristichno and is new in the Polish writer!" [15, page 8].

In other words, that revolution in the Polish historiography which was stated at first N.A. Popov (1884) and then N.I. Kareev (1886), proved earlier, than the Essay was published "." M. Bobzhinsky, and — that is not less essential — the Russian author he was noticed much more before the middle of the 1880th years. It is necessary to emphasize also that Gumplovich's text drew to itself attention of the Russian observer for the same reason on what Popov and Kareev so will be interested "the Essay." Bobzhinsky: the Polish publisher of materials of Lordly confederation, as it was represented to the Russian author, directly echoed interpretation of causes of death of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, widespread in the Russian polonistika.

List of references

1. N.I. Kareev Prozhitoye and endured. L., 1990.
2. N.I. Kareev. Polonica: the collection of articles on the Polish cases (1881 — 1905). SPb., 1905.
3. Bobrzynski M. Dzieje Polski w zarysie. Kraków, 1879.
4. N.I. Kareev. "Fall of Poland" in historical literature. SPb., 1888.
5. N.A. Popov. About the major phenomena in the Polish historical literature for last year//News of the St. Petersburg Slavic charity. 1884. No. 2.
6. Vorobyova I.G. Professor-slavist Neil Aleksandrovich Popov. Tver, 1999.
7. I.G. Vorobyova. A foreign historiography of the Slavic people in N.A. Popov's works / / Problems of social history and the culture of the Middle Ages and early Modern times. Issue 5. SPb., 2005.
8. Popov N.A. Varvara Koroleva. The historical story from the Polish life//the Russian messenger. 1857. No. 1.
9. N.A. Popov. From Marina Mnishek's life//the Moscow sheets. 1857. No. 82, 86, 91, 98, 103, 106, 120.
10. N.A. Popov. Warsaw duchy//Russian messenger. 1866. No. 2.
11. N.A. Popov. Free city of Krakow. 1815 — 1846//Bulletin of Europe. 1875. No. 1.
12. L.M. Arzhakova, V.A. Yakubsky. The Polish question in the Russian historiography and journalism of the first third of the 19th century//Albo dies notanda lapillo. Colleagues and G.E. Lebedeva's pupils. SPb., 2005. Page 173 — 193.
13. Solovyov S.M. Soch.: in 18 books by the Prince 17. M, 1996.
14. N.I. Kareev. The latest Polish historiography and a revolution in it//the Bulletin of Europe. 1886. Dec.
15. E.L. Poland and Poles at Stanislav Ponyatovskom. 1784 — 1792//Bulletin of Europe. 1874. Prince 7, 8.
16. Konfederacja Barska. Korespondencja migdzy Stanislawem Augustem a Ksawerym Branickim, lowczym koronnym, w roku 1768. Kraków, 1872.
17. Polski Slownik biograficzny. T. 9 / 1. Wroclaw — Kraków — Warszawa, 1960.

About the author

Larisa Mikhaelovna Arzhakova — an edging. east. sciences, associate professor, St. Petersburg State University, e-mail:


Dr. Larisa Arzhakova, Associate Professor, Saint Petersburg State University, e-mail:

Robert Garcia
Other scientific works: